Candler v. Santa Rita County Jail Watch Commander et al

Filing 2

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM. Amended Pleadings due by 11/6/2011. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/7/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

MARK ANTHONY CANDLER,

4
5
6
7

No. C 11-01992 CW (PR)

Plaintiff,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND; DIRECTING CLERK OF
COURT TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH
CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM

v.
SANTA RITA COUNTY JAILS WATCH
COMMANDER, et al.,
Defendants.

8

/

9
INTRODUCTION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Pelican
Bay State Prison, filed the instant pro se civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining about the conditions of his
confinement when he was incarcerated at the Santa Rita County Jail
(SRCJ).

He has paid the filing fee.

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any
case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity
or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
§ 1915A(a).

See 28 U.S.C.

In its review, the court must identify any cognizable

claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).
construed.

See id.

Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally

See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696,

699 (9th Cir. 1988).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and
(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting

1

under color of state law.

2

(1988).

3

defendant only if the plaintiff can show that the defendant

4

proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right.

5

See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).

6
7

Under § 1983, liability may be imposed on an individual

For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's complaint is
dismissed with leave to amend.

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in his complaint:
1.
There was no reason provided to me as to why it was
necessary to place me in segregation. I sent several
message request forms & still no Resident Information
Report issue to me. I feel the defendants did not comply
with procedural due process.

15

2.
Secondly, I believe it is cruel & unusual punishment
for me to come out my cell two to three hours out of 168
hours per week. I should allowed to shower at least
every other day. Due to this unhealthy program, I have
developed rashes & scars on my backside.

16

3.

17

4.
I will amend more defendants later, because I'm not
sure of their exact name at this time.

14

Mental stress & paranoia.

18
Compl. at 3:10-22.
19
Plaintiff identifies as Defendants the "Santa Rita County
20
Jails Watch Commander" and "Commanding Officer D. Sanchas."

He

21
seeks unspecified injunctive relief and damages.
22
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
23
that the complaint set forth “a short and plain statement of the
24
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

A complaint

25
that fails to state the specific acts of the defendant that
26
violated the plaintiff's rights fails to meet the notice
27
requirements of Rule 8(a).

See Hutchinson v. United States, 677

28
F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5 (9th Cir. 1982).
2

Additionally, Rule 8(e)

1

requires that each averment of a pleading be “simple, concise, and

2

direct.”

3

While the federal rules require brevity in pleading, a complaint

4

nevertheless must be sufficient to give the defendants “fair

5

notice” of the claim and the “grounds upon which it rests.”

6

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quotation and citation

7

omitted).

8
9

See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996).

Here, Plaintiff’s claims cannot proceed as plead because
Plaintiff has not provided sufficient facts for the Court to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

determine whether he states a cognizable claim for relief.

11

Plaintiff does not explain, for example, the restrictions to which

12

he was subjected, the length of time he was allowed only two

13

showers a day and the reasons given for such restriction, the

14

nature of the "mental stress & paranoia" he suffered and the

15

response, or lack thereof, by SRCJ staff.

16

has linked no Defendant or any other individual to his allegations

17

and an identifiable injury.

18

relief is moot now that he no longer is incarcerated at the SRCJ.

19

Additionally, Plaintiff

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED for failure to

20

state a cognizable claim for relief.

21

complaint in which he (1) alleges sufficient facts for the Court to

22

determine whether he states a claim for the violation of his

23

constitutional rights, and (2) clearly links Defendants to the

24

alleged injury or injuries for which the Defendants are alleged to

25

be responsible.

26

Plaintiff may file am amended

CONCLUSION

27

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

28

1.

Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED.
3

1

2.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order,

2

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint in order to cure the

3

deficiencies noted above.

4

rights complaint form, a copy of which is provided herewith, and

5

include in the caption both the case number of this action,

6

No. C 11-01992 CW (PR), and the heading “AMENDED COMPLAINT.”

Plaintiff shall use the court's civil

7

If Plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint in

8

conformity with this Order, the case will be dismissed without

9

prejudice and will be closed.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

3.

It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case.

11

Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address and

12

must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion.

13

to do so may result in the dismissal of this action, pursuant to

14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute.

15
16
17
18

4.

Failure

The Clerk of the Court shall provide Plaintiff with a

blank civil rights complaint form.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 10/7/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
MARK A. CANDLER,

Case Number: CV11-01992 CW

4
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

5
v.
6
SANTA RITA COUNTY JAIL et al,
7
Defendant.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on October 7, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached and a blank civil
rights complaint form, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the
person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies)
into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

13
14
15
16
17
18

Mark Anthony Candler AF7322
Pelican Bay State Prison
P.O. Box 7500
Cresent City, CA 95532
Dated: October 7, 2011
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5